August 9

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000- An Analysis and Critique



In India the laws relating to protection of children are found in a number of legislations. The Constitution on India provides the basis for the legal framework to protect children, whom it recognizes as a discrete group with identifiable rights and needs.  The constitution mandates child protection as a special provision in Article 15 (3)[1].  Article 39 (E) & (F)[2]provides protection of children’s healthy development. Article 24[3]prevents children from working in hazardous situations below 14 years. Article 45[4]provides the right of children for free and compulsory education and Article 47[5]prohibits the consumption of liquor and intoxicating drugs, except for medical purposes.  Moreover, Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides protection of children from sexual abuse in sections 354, 375 and 509, selling of minors for prostitution in sections 366, 366A, 366B and 372, buying minors for the purpose of prostitution in section 373 and non-consensual assault of male child in section 377.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is the primary legal framework for juvenile justice in India. The Act provides for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in the purview of the juvenile justice system.  This law, brought in compliance of Child Rights Convention[6], repealed the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 1986. This Act has been further amended in year 2006 and 2010.
Main provisions of the Act
 The act defines “Juvenile “or “child” as a person who has not completed 18 years of age[7]. The act deals with two kinds of juveniles, “juvenile in need of care and protection” and “juvenile in conflict with law”.  Section 2(d)[8]of the act defines a child in need of care and protection as a child who is without a home, settled home or place of abode, a child who is found begging on the streets , a street child , a child who resides with such a person who has threatened to kill the child,  a child who is mentally challenged , an abandoned child, a child who is vulnerable and can be dragged into drug abuse, sexual acts and a child who is victim of civil commotion and natural calamity. Juvenile in conflict[9]with law has been defined as a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.

Juveniles in Conflict with law:
The second chapter of the Act addresses Juveniles in Conflict with Law. This chapter calls for the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards where the State Government sees fit[10]. Juvenile Justice Boards must contain a Metropolitan or Judicial magistrate and two social workers where one of the workers must be a woman. The magistrate is required to have a background in child psychology or child welfare. Juvenile in Conflict with Law cases can only be heard in the Juvenile Justice Board and not by another court[11]. The chapter also deals with establishment of Observation homes[12]which are institutions for juveniles while their proceedings are underway.
As per the act when a police officer comes in contact with a juvenile he must place the child with the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU) who must report the child to the board without delay[13]. Bail is available to juveniles in all cases as long as the Board finds that the release of this child will not place him in any danger or in the influence of criminals. If the child is not released on bail he is only to be placed into the custody of an Observation Home.


Order that can be passed against Juvenile:
The chapter II to the act lays down the orders that can be passed against a juvenile[14]when the Juvenile Justice Board is satisfied that the Juvenile has committed an offence. The orders mentioned are:
(a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry  against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile;
(b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities;
(c) order the juvenile to perform community service;
(d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen  years of age and earns money;
(e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care  of any parent, guardian or other fit person,on such parent, guardian or other fit person  executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour  andwell-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years;
(f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not  exceeding three years;
(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home,-
(i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age for a period  of not less than two years;
(ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile:
The Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it think fit.


Order that cannot be passed against a Juvenile:
Section 16 to the act states that a juvenile who has been found guilty of any crime can in no circumstance be punished with a death sentence , life imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security[15].The proviso to the section lays down the case of a juvenile who is above 16 years of age and has committed an  offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is of so serious in nature or  that his conduct and behavior have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as  it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government[16].


Children in Need of Care and Protection:
Chapter III addresses Children in Need of Care and Protection.  In place of a Juvenile Justice Board, Children in need for care and protection cases are heard by the Child Welfare Committee[17]. The committee should have a chairperson and four other members of whom at least one should be a woman and at least one expert in children’s issues[18]. The purpose of the Child Welfare Committee is to provide for the care, treatment, protection, rehabilitation and development of the child and in doing so uphold the rights of the child. The committee may commit a child to the Children’s home or a Shelter home if the child has no immediately available family or support system.
Like in the case of Juvenile In Conflict with law, Children in need of care and protection are provided with Children’s Homes[19]and Shelter Homes[20]. The state may directly set up these homes or contract a voluntary organization to do so. The main aim of this system is to restore the child to his family or family environment after determining the safety of the environment.


Protection Measures:
Chapter IV of the Act envisages for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the children and and discusses certain non-institutional solutions such as adoption[21], foster care[22], and sponsorship[23]. Orphaned and abandoned children are eligible for adoption. Foster care in this act is only for looking after infants before adoption takes place[24]. Sponsorship programmes[25]are to help provide supplementary educational, nutritional, medical and other services to families, guardians, and homes. After-care organizations[26]are also to be set up to take care of children after they leave the homes. 
The last chapter of the act contains many miscellaneous provisions. Some of the notable provisions are as follows. The act allows for children with special needs such as a mental or physical disease to be given the necessary attention at an approved institution that specialises in the form of care[27]. Under this act the government can set up advisory boards at different levels to advise them about various implementation aspects of the act.


The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection) Act, 2000- A Critique Analysis
Though the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2000 is a good piece of legislation serving the twin purpose of providing justice and providing ways of rehabilitation to the Juveniles in Conflict with Law and Juvenile in need of care and protection but it is not free from flaws and criticism. There are glaring deficiencies both, in procedural as well as substantive portions which require attention.

a) Usage of the word ‘may’:

A lot of the implementation part has been left up to the States by way of the rules that the States may formulate. The usage of the word ‘may’ as far as the framing of rules by the States is concerned, is a major fallacy because until and unless, the formulation of rules is not made mandatory, the implementation of the Act will remain a dream. Sec. 8 of the Act is an example of the abovementioned problem. According to Sec.8 (3) of the Act, the State may formulate rules and standards for the observation homes that are to be established. Leaving something as important as maintenance of standards to the discretion of the State is a major problem and should be made mandatory for the State to regulate such basic areas. Even the appointment of inspection committees for the children’s homes has been left to the discretion of the States and they ‘may’ constitute such committees according to Sec. 29. Something as important as after care organizations, to check up on the juveniles who have left the special homes and have been adopted or rehabilitated, has also been left to the discretion of the States according to Sec.44.

b)  Extension of period regarding inquiry:

Sec. 14[28]says that any inquiry regarding a juvenile, needs to be completed within a period of four months unless there are some special circumstances in special cases. There is absolutely no mention of what the maximum period for inquiry should be and what may be the special circumstances under which the period should be extended. This discretion permits cases to languish in the system indefinitely. Sec. 14 gives a lot of scope for arbitrariness and any lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the juvenile justice board may be sought to be explained as the special circumstances of the cases and hence, they have the option of getting away with it. This is extremely dangerous for a juvenile, in whose case the inquiry should be completed as soon as possible.

c)  Adequate training for the officials dealing with juveniles:

No provisions have been provided in the Act regarding the specifications of the special training of the officials who are supposed to deal with juvenile offenders. Even though Sec. 63 provides for properly trained police unit, it pays mere lip service to the requirement of special training because no proper guidelines have been provided as to how the special training will be given. Lack of properly trained officials defeats the entire purpose of the Act.

d)  Punishment for cruelty to a juvenile:

According to Sec. 23[29], a person responsible for cruelty to a juvenile will be punished with
Imprisonment for a period of 6 months or with fine or with both.  It is very strange that at a time when the government is trying to curb the menace of cruelty with juveniles, the punishment that they have prescribed is in no way going to act as a deterrent to such erring individuals. The punishment needs to be increased and also the fine amount needs to be specified so that it may discourage the potential law breakers in this area.

e)  The issue of Age of Juvenile:
Indian laws have created four categories of persons (who are accused of committing any offence) on the basis of their age. The criminal liability of a person, who has committed an offence, depends on the age-wise category to which he belongs. This is explained as under:
(1) Below 7 years of age:
Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code declares that nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Thus, irrespective of what crime is committed by a child below seven years of age, he shall not be liable for any punishment for such crime.
(2) Between the age of 7 years and 12 years:
Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code lays down as under:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”
Thus, if an offence is committed by a child who is above 7 years of age but under 12 years of age, it will first have to be ascertained whether the child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding due to which he can judge the nature of his alleged conduct (i.e., the act of committing the offence) and the consequences thereof.
Now, if such a child commits an offence and he did not have the sufficient maturity of understanding the nature and consequences of his conduct, he would not be liable for that offence.  On the other hand, if he had the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct (leading to that offence), he shall be liable for that offence in accordance with the provisions of law. However, even in such a case, he shall not be prosecuted and punished like adult offenders. Such a child committing an offence shall be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to juvenile justice in India. Thus, even if such a child is liable for action for the offence committed by him, he cannot be imprisoned and he cannot be given death penalty.
(3) Between the age of 12 years and 18 years:
If an offence is committed by a person who is of the age of 12 years or above but below the age of 18 years, he shall be liable for such offence. However, he shall not be prosecuted and punished like adult offenders. He shall be dealt with only in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to juvenile justice in India. Thus, such a person also cannot be imprisoned and he cannot be given death penalty.
(4) Of or above the age of 18 years:
If a person committing an offence has completed the age of 18 years or is above the age of 18 years, he is criminally liable for such offence in accordance with the normal criminal laws of the country.

In the light of Juvenile Justice Act:  According to the Juvenile Justice act a “child” or Juvenile is a person who is under 18 years of age[30]. The act fails to punish offenders who are under 18 years of age but have attained mental maturity and are aware about the nature and circumstances of their act.  The intention behind the existence of the Act was to protect the juveniles because they were not supposed to have the necessary mental element required to commit crimes. This was the reason behind having milder laws and punishments to deal with juvenile offenders. However, in the light of cases[31]of crimes committed by maximum amount of brutality by Juvenile it is very evident that the offenders had the necessary knowledge and mental element regarding the commission of the crime and the provisions of the Act have now turned out to be a shield to protect them and provide them with lighter modes of punishment such as counseling or being kept in a correction home for 3 years.
In the case of Kakoo vs State of A P[32], Kakoo named boy of 13 years of age had committed rape on a small child of two years. He was convicted and sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment. When the case reached the apex court it adopted humanitarian attitude and reduced the sentence to only one year rigorous imprisonment. Justice Sarkaria observed that an inordinate long imprisonment term is sure to turn a juvenile delinquent into obdurate criminal and laid an emphasis that in case of child offenders current penological trends command ‘a more humanitarian approach.
Recently the Supreme Court while declining petitions[33] seeking the lowering of the age in the act from 18 to 16 years for juveniles and demanding that those involved in heinous crimes should not be treated differently from other offenders said:
 “The essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the rules framed there under in 2007, is restorative and not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into the mainstream of society”
“It is probably better to try and re-integrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society, rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the future,” the court said.

Law in other countries and age of criminal responsibility[34]:
In England, the age of criminal responsibility, is set at 10 years. This means that any individual above the age of 10 is considered fully aware of the difference between right and wrong. In case of a juvenile offender, he/she can either be tried as a juvenile or as an adult, depending again on the heinousness of the crime. In case the offender is tried as an adult the Crown Court (the UK version of a criminal court) has in its discretion to award the maximum amount of punishment as would be awarded to an adult.
Similarly in the United States the case of Kent v The United Case[35] in 1966 saw a juvenile, who was convicted of house breaking robbery and rape, tried as a major. He was sentenced to thirty to ninety years behind bars.
In fact, the Unites States has drawn a clear distinction between juveniles as victims of an unresponsive society and those who are fully aware of the heinousness of their crimes. The legislation of the country allows in certain cases, keeping in mind the heinousness of the crime committed, to try juvenile offenders as adults. The justification offered behind this waiver is to recognise the inherent and all important principle of Mens Rea or guilty conscience.
This waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Board is brought about by a clear understanding that in certain cases the board may not be adequately equipped to handle the offender, particularly one who committed the crime knowing fully well the consequences of his/her actions.
Another justification offered is the prime responsibility of the State to protect society from such offenders. By waiving its jurisdiction the juvenile court recognises that the offender is beyond the scope of juvenile rehabilitation and legitimises the waiver of jurisdiction as a means of protecting society at large from the offender.
Australia too follows a system similar to the United Kingdom. The age for criminal responsibility in Australia is also 10 years[36], which means a child is not supposed to know the difference between right and wrong if he/she is below 10 years. From 10 years to 14 years an accused comes under what is called ‘rebuttable presumption’, this means that by default the child is supposed to be unaware of the consequences and inherent illegality of the act committed, however the prosecution is free to rebut this understanding. Any individual over 14 years of age is held accountable of any crime committed by him and whether the individual is to be tried as a minor or an adult depends again on the heinousness of the crime.
Coming back to India and the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, it is easy to notice that rather than have a flexible procedure for sentencing we have opted for a rigid and sweeping one. This is a system in which the maximum amount of sentence served by a delinquent who say partakes in armed robbery in order to feed himself is the same as the one given out to a serial rapist or murderer; just so long both are under eighteen years of age.
Of course, the absolute lack of implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act after a juvenile completes his sentence is another concern. India’s massive population makes it impossible to track and ensure that a juvenile once released continues with his therapy or even reports regularly to his parole officer.
Summing up though the Juvenile Justice Act is a Progressive step in providing justice and rehabilitation to the Juveniles in conflict with law and Children in need of care and protection but the need of the hour is to amend it to overcome the lacunas it has and make it progressive with time.




[1] Article 15(3) of Indian Constitution
[2] Article 39 (E) & (F) of Indian Constitution
[3] Article 24 of Indian Constitution
[4] Article 45 of Indian Constitution
[5] Article 47 of Indian Constitutions
[6] United Nations (1989)  Convention on the Rights of the Child New York
[7] Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[8] Section 2(d) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[9] Section 2(l) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[10] Section 4 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[11] Section 4(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[12] Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[13] Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[14] Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[15] Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[16] Proviso to  Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[17] Section 29 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[18] Section 29(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[19] Section 34 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[20] Section 37 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[21] Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[22] Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[23] Section 43 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[24] Section 42 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[25] Section 43 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[26] Section 44 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[27] Section 48 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[28] Section 14 of   the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[29] Section 23 of  the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[30] Section 2(k) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000.
[31] Priyangi Agarwal,Juvenile offender major crimes, Times of India, dated Jan 8, 2013.
[32] AIR 1976 SC 1991.
[33] Salil Bali v. UOI; Writ petition (c) no. 10 of 2013.
[34] Neal Hazel, Cross-national comparison of youth justice Pg. 35 , The University of Salford available at : http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/resources/downloads/cross_national_final.pdf
[35] Kent v The United Case ;383 U.S. 541
[36] Gregor Urbas, The Age of Criminal Responsibility, Australian Institute Of Criminology Pg. 1, available at http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/0/A/%7B00A92691-0908-47BF-9311-01AD743F01E1%7Dti181.pdf
Read more
Posted by Sonia Saini | no comments
July 20

Police Act 1861 and Model Police Act , 2006; an analysis

Under the Indian Constitution, the Police are a state concern.[1]However, there are similarities between the states, due to three main reasons.  First, all state polices are structured and regulated by the Police Act of 1861 or they have state statutes that are modeled after the 1861 Act. Second, the India Police Service is trained, recruited and managed by the central government[2]. The service also deploys the senior offices to the states. Third, the central government maintains a coordinating role, while the state government is in charge of supervising its police force[3].
At the district level (every state is divided into districts), there is a level of dual control. On the one hand, there is a high-ranking police officer in charge of the district (District Superintendent of Police). On the other hand, that District Superintendent is subject to the general direction and control of the District Magistrate, who belongs to the executive.[4]This was done so as to assure executive rule over the police, which was considered essential for maintaining British rule. However, the system was not always efficient so it was supplemented, gradually, in many cities, with another system, by which the commissioner of police supervises that area. Matters relating to the police at the central level are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The relationship between the state and the central government is complex and multifaceted, regulated by the Constitution and framework statutes. However, for our purposes, it is important to establish which entity has control over police conduct itself. The police itself are under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs. And yet, the mechanism which checks police conduct is not to be found there. The police does investigate official misconduct and corruption, but only when it comes to the misconduct of other government officials and not to police misconduct itself[5]In terms of internal disciplinary investigations, the police are responsible for disciplining their own.
The duties of the police are specified in the Police Act of 1861, a remnant of colonial rule that was designed to be highly militaristic and authoritarian[6]. Section 20 specifies that the police do not have unfettered discretion to commit any act, but only those acts that have been sanctioned by law (the ultra-vires principle). Section 23 specifies the general duties of the police officer[7]. Save for a brief section on neglect of duty, however, the Act does not discuss instances of civilian and political control over police when the latter has exceeded or abused its power[8]
As mentioned above, the police are governed by the state, so most of the regulations will be found in state laws rather than central government laws. For example, the Delhi Police Act of 1978 specifies, in section 19, the powers held by the commissioner of police. The Commissioner may make regulations regarding, among others, the place of residence of members of the police force and regulations for the purpose of “rendering the police efficient and preventing abuse or neglect of their duties”[9]. The Act further provides for punishments in cases of misconduct[10].
While the various police acts clearly articulate the powers the police forces enjoy, they are less clear, indeed silent, on the processes that can be taken against police misconduct by the aggrieved citizenry. True, the police acts prescribe actions that can be taken against police officers in cases of dereliction of duty, but such action is usually brought by the officer’s superior, who also later assigns the punishment, if any. The various police acts do not set up any mechanism for effective political and civic control of the police force. There is no establishment of an institution whose sole purpose and authority is to receive complaints from the public, investigate the complaints, and bring the proper action after the investigation has ended. While the police have internal mechanisms to deal with disciplinary infractions and the like, there is no clearly established external mechanism that makes them accountable to the public which they are in charge of protecting.
The need for reform: The need for police reforms in India is long recognized. There has been more than three decades of discussion by government created committees and commissions. Way back in 1979 the National Police Commission (NPC) was set upto report on policing and give recommendations for reform. The Commission produced eight reports, dozens of topic specific recommendations and also a Model Police Act. No recommendation was adopted by any government. This persuaded two former Director General’s of Police (DGPs) in 1996 to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct governments to implement the NPC recommendations. In the course of the 10 year long battle in Court, the Court set up the Ribeiro Committee in 1998 followed by the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and eventually the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC or Soli Sorabjee Committee) that drafted a new model police bill to replace the colonial 1861 Police Act in 2006. Meanwhile very little was ever done on the ground to improve policing or implement the recommendations put forth by any of these committees or commissions.
A decade later in 2006 the Court delivered its verdict. In what is popularly referred to as the Prakash Singh case[11]the Supreme Court ordered that reform must take place. States and union territories were directed to comply with seven binding directives that would kick start reform.
THE SEVEN DIRECTIVES IN A NUTSHELL
Directive One
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:
(i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police
(ii) Lay down broad policy guideline and
(iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police
Directive Two
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through merit based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Three
Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including Superintendents of Police in-charge of a district and Station House Officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years
Directive Four
Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police
Directive Five
Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Directive Six
Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in cases of serious misconduct
Directive Seven
Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years
These directives pulled together the various strands of improvement generated since 1979. The Court required immediate implementation of its orders either through executive orders or new police legislation. Initially, the Court itself monitored compliance of all states and union territories. However, in 2008 it set up a three member Monitoring Committee with a two year mandate to examine compliance state by state and report back to it periodically.
Compliance Statistics of the Directive issued by Supreme Court : So far, only 14 states have either enacted the new Police Act or amended their existing laws to incorporate suggestions of the SC.
Comparison of the Police Act 1861 and Model Police Act, 1861 :
1)      On the basis of scope of the Acts:  The Police Act 1861 is not the sole or only law in relation to police functions .The maintenance of public order and the criminal justice system are based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act as well as a large number of special legislations including special laws including Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA, now repealed ) or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (in which many of the provisions of repealed POTA have been incorporated ) or Control of Organized Crimes Act (COCA) as in Maharashtra or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, apart from the provisions of the Indian Constitution itself .In addition to the laws, there are Police Regulations (e.g. PRB in West Bengal) and Police Manuals (e.g. Tamil Nadu) in every state laying down clear guidelines and instructions in regard to the exercise of police powers and duties.
         
The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration. It is self sufficient in nature and does not draw any support from the other substantive law for the purpose of administration. It is an act in a right direction which can be a good alternative to the archaic old act
2)      The preamble of the Act:   The preamble of the Police Act of 1861 states that enacted to reorganize the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime[12]. The preamble of the act makes it clear that the role of the police is just as an instrument for prevention and detection of crimes. The police plays no role in preserving the rights of the people and responding to the democratic aspiration of the people. The role of the police is just confined to the law enforcement function.
The preamble of the Model Act is wider in its ambit and its states:
WHEREAS respect for and promotion of the human rights of the people, and protection of their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, is the primary concern of the Rule of Law[13];
AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide impartial and efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests of vulnerable sections of society including the minorities, and responding to the democratic aspirations of citizens;
AND WHEREAS such functioning of the police personnel needs to be professionally organised, service oriented, free from extraneous influences and accountable to law;
AND WHEREAS it is expedient to redefine the role of the police, its duties and responsibilities, by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of State, the imperatives of good governance, and respect for human rights;
AND WHEREAS it is essential to appropriately empower the police to enable it to function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, since it is necessary for this purpose to enact a new law relating to the establishment and management of the Police Service, it is hereby enacted as follows:
         
3)      Control and Supervision of Police :
Under the Police Act 1861, the superintendence of the police vests in the State Government and it is exercised by the State Government to which the Police Officer is Subordinate[14]. The admistration of the Police according to the act vests in the Inspector-General of Police and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspector-General , as the State Government considers fit.[15]
Whereas in the Model Police Act, Superintendence of the police vests in the relevant state government[16]. The state government is responsible for ensuring an efficient, effective, responsive and accountable police service[17]. Superintendence is limited to promoting “professional efficiency of the police” and ensuring that “[police] performance is at all times in accordance with law. Administration of the police vests in the Director General of Police[18]. The government cannot interfere with the Director General’s powers except in accordance with prescribed rules or in exceptional circumstances (where reasons should be recorded). The powers of administration will include[19]:
§  supervising the functioning of the police at all levels;
§  appointment to subordinate ranks (all officers below the rank of Deputy
§   Superintendent of Police);
§  deployment;
§  transfers and disciplinary action up to and inclusive of the rank of  Inspector of Police; and
§   advising the government on the placement of officers of and above therank of Assistant/Deputy Superintendent of Police.
4.            Provision for   State Police Board
The Police Act 1861 does not provide for the formation of a State Police Board whereas the Model Police Act, 2006 states a state Police Board[20]would be constituted
The State Police Board according to the act shall comprise of[21]:
a)     the Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly;
b)     a retired High Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court;
c)     the Chief Secretary;
d)     the Home Secretary;
e)     the Director General of Police as the member secretary; and
f)      five non-political persons of proven integrity and competence from the fields of academia, law, public administration, media or nongovernment
 The State Police Board would perform the following functions according to the act[22]:
a)      frame broad policy guidelines for promoting efficient, effective, responsiveand accountable policing;
b)      select and prepare a panel (on the basis of seniority and merit see below)of three senior most police officers for promotion to the post of Director General of Police;
c)      identify performance indicators for police evaluation; and
d)      Conduct organizational performance evaluation.
5.      Provisions regarding  Director General of Police:
The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the appointment of Director General of Police but under the Model Police Act, the police is under administration of Director General of Police so provision has been incorporated for appointment of Director General of Police who shall be appointed by State Government from amongst three senior-most officers of the state Police Service, empanelled for the rank[23].
6.      Security of Tenure:
The Police Act, 1861 does not contain any provision regarding the security of tenure. It provides that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector-General, Assistant Inspector-General and District Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss , suspend or reduce any police officer of subordinate ranks whom they think remiss or negligent in the discharge of duty , or unfit for the same[24].
On the other hand the Model Police Act, 2006 provides that all officers must be provided with a minimum of two years tenure in a particular post to ensure they are free to complete their tasks free of illegitimate interference[25]. An authority mandated to transfer officers of a particular rank (or to a particular post) may transfer officers before the passing of two years, but only if reasons are recorded.
7.        Transfers:
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision regarding transfers. The police being under the State Government is always subject to frequent transfers on the wishes of the State Government.
Under the Model Police Act, 2006 the Power to transfer is given to different authorities depending on rank or post. Transfer is prohibited by any authority other than the one specified in law. Under the Act the government shall post officers to all positions in the ranks of Assistant/ Deputy Superintendent and above. In each case (except for the Director General of Police), the government should be guided by the recommendations of the Police Establishment Committee[26], made up of the Director General of Police and four other senior-most officers. The government must accept these recommendations or record its reasons for disagreement in writing.
The Director General decides all initial transfers of officers who are Sub-Inspectors or Inspectors to a police range as well as transfers of these officers from one range to another, after considering the recommendations of the Establishment Committee. The Range Deputy Inspector General decides inter-district transfers of Inspectors and more junior officers within a range on the recommendations of a committee made up of all the District Superintendents of Police in the range[27]. The District Superintendent of Police decides the transfer of Inspectors and more junior officers within a district on the recommendations of a committee made up of all the Additional, Deputy and Assistant Superintendents of Police in a district.
8.      Promotion :
Under the Police Act 1861, there is no specific provision for promotion.
The Draft Police Act, 2006 lays down specific provision regarding promotion which has to be evaluated by a qualifying examination and a performance evaluation[28]. The act further lays down that the union government must frame the evaluation criteria for officers of the Indian Police Service[29]. The Director General of Police shall frame the evaluation criteria for the remaining officers in the relevant state (with the approval of the state government)[30]. The Model Act also mandates the state Police Recruitment Board to set out the merit and seniority criteria for promotion for different ranks[31].
9.      Appointment
The Police Act, 1861 states that appointment of the police officers is subject to article 311 of the constitution and such rules as the State Government may from time to time make under the act[32].
According to the Model Police Act Recruitment[33] to the police organization shall continue to be at the following three levels:
a)    to the Indian Police Service through the Union Public Service Commission[34];
b)    to Deputy Superintendent of Police through the State Public Service Commission[35];
c)    and direct recruitment to non-gazetted ranks through a state-level Police Recruitment Board.
This Board created under the Model Act shall ensure that the process of recruitment is transparent, and adopts codified and scientific systems and procedures. The New act proposes the position of constable to be replaced by civil police. The direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ posts in the Civil Police, other than in the ministerial and technical cadres, after the coming into force of this Act, shall be made only to the ranks of Civil Police Officer Grade II and Sub-Inspector[36]. The age group for recruitment as stipendiary Civil Police Officer Grade II cadet shall be 18 to 23 years. The minimum educational qualification shall be 10+2 Higher Secondary or equivalent examination[37].
The act further provides that in case of armed police direct recruitment to the armed police shall be limited to Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commandant; Reserve Sub-Inspector; and Constable[38]. The minimum educational qualification for a Constable in the armed police shall be matriculation, while a reserve Sub-Inspector must be a graduate. A Constable shall be between 18-21 years of age and a reserve Sub-Inspector between 21-24 years[39].
10.  Strengthening police investigations
Under the Police Act, 1861 the preamble clearly states that “whereas it is expedient to reorganize the Police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime[40]. The Police Investigation conducted are governed by the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure and there are no specific section in the Police Act, 1861 which provides for it.
On the other hand Model Police Act, 2006 provides that Investigation and law and order functions shall be separated (a model is proposed to ensure this happens without affecting the chain of command). Specialised crime investigation wings and departments must be equipped with adequate facilities, scientific aids, and qualified and trained human resources[41].
At the state level, a Criminal Investigation Department[42]must be created to investigate inter-state and inter-district crimes, as well as other serious crimes either notified by the state government or allocated to the Department by the Director General of Police. A Deputy Inspector General of Police shall head the Department[43]. The Department must have specialised units for investigating cyber crime, organized crime, homicide, economic offences and any other offences that require specific investigative skills (and are specifically notified by the state government).
The act further provides that a Special Crime Investigation Unit shall be created at the police station level in all urban and crime-prone rural areas[44]. A Sub-Inspector or a more senior officer shall head the Unit[45]. The Unit must investigate offences such as murder, kidnapping, rape, dacoity, robbery, dowry-related offences, serious cases of cheating, misappropriation and other economic offences that are notified by the Director General of Police or allocated by the District Superintendent of Police[46]. All other crimes shall continue to be investigated by other officers in the police station[47]. Officers in the Special Crime Investigation Unit and in the Criminal Investigation Department at the state level shall have a minimum tenure of three years (with a maximum tenure of five years)[48]. Officers posted to the Special Crime Investigation Unit cannot be given any other duty, except under exceptional circumstances and with the written permission of the Director General of Police.
The act also considers that despite the separation of investigation and law and order f       unctions, the Station House Officer shall continue to supervise all officers in the Police Station including those posted in the Special Crime Investigation Unit. In addition to the Station House Officer, an Additional Superintendent of Police at the district level must supervise these investigations as well. The Additional Superintendent shall report to the District Superintendent.
11.  Accountability for performance
The Police Act, 1861 totally fails on the grounds of any accountability of the acts of the Police. The police under this act hold no accountability to anyone.
Under the Model Police Acts the Police organization has been made more accountable to the public by incorporating certain specific provisions in this regard. The acts incorporates  that the The State Government shall in consultation with the State Police Board established under draw up a Strategic Policing Plan for a five-year period duly identifying the objectives of policing sought to be achieved during the period and setting out an action plan for their implementation[49];. The plans shall be prepared after receiving  inputs on the policing needs of the districts from the District  Superintendents of Police who, in turn, shall formulate the same in consultation with the community[50].
The State Police Board shall regularly evaluate the performance of the police organisation in each district, as well as the state police as a whole. When conducting an evaluation, the Board shall be assisted by an Inspectorate of Performance. This Inspectorate shall be headed by a retired Director General of Police and made up of serving or retired police officers, social scientists, police academics and crime statisticians. The members of the Inspectorate shall be appointed by the government from a list of candidates prepared by the State Police Board[51]
12.  Accountability for Police Misconduct
Police misconduct and the failure to effectively respond to situations are undermining public confidence in the system. These are issues whose gravity is not being addressed in any really serious way. The widespread belief that the police functions with impunity – and officers are rarely held to account for their acts of omission and commission is breaking the faith of the public in the police. Further, Sections 132 and 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prevent courts from taking cases of alleged offences in the discharge of official duty, for various categories of public servants including police officers, without the prior sanction of the government. This sanction is sparingly granted which explains the overwhelming reliance on internal disciplinary mechanisms which unfortunately do not inspire public trust and confidence. General public distrust stems from a variety of beliefs such as an innate desire for the department to protect its image; some questionable practices finding widespread acceptance within the police; inquiry officers not wishing to be seen as turncoats and inimical to the feeling of camaraderie; the feeling that disciplinary action will lower the morale of the force and blunt its edge in dealing with special situations like militancy or organised crime; and the likelihood of the person under scrutiny being personally known to inquiry officer/s.
The Police Act 1861 is silent on Police Misconduct but the Model Police Act has specific provisions devoted to it. Under the Model Police Act, 2006 The state government must set up a Police Accountability Commission[52]at the state level to inquire into extremely “serious misconduct[53]”, which is defined as: death in police custody; grievous hurt; rape or attempted rape; and illegal arrest or detention. Inquiries by the Commission shall replace internal inquiries, and its findings shall be binding on the police department and the government. The only discretion or power that the police or government shall have in such cases is to award punishment in cases where the Commission finds an officer guilty.
The police must be under a duty to forward all cases of serious misconduct to the Commission for inquiry.  Except in cases of serious misconduct, the police department shall retain the the police department shall retain the power to internally inquire and discipline officers.
The Commission shall be made up of five members that have a credible record of Integrity and commitment to human rights. Of the five members, at least one must be a woman, and not more than one should be a police officer. The members must include[54]:
a.       retired High Court judge as the Chairperson;’
b.      a retired police officer of the rank of Director General of Police from a different state cadre;
c.       a person with a minimum of ten years experience either as a judicial officer, public prosecutor, practising advocate, or a professor of law;
d.      a person of repute and standing from civil society; and
e.       a retired officer with experience in public administration from another state.
The state government must also put in place District Accountability Authorities[55]in each police district or group of districts in a police range to monitor internal inquiries into cases of police misconduct that include any wilful breach or neglect by a police officer of any law, rule, or regulation that adversely affects the rights of an individual.
To increase the accountability under the Act, The police are under a duty to send quarterly reports[56]detailing the complaints received against police officers and the action taken by the police organization (where the case involves a member of the public). If a complaint relates to a Deputy Superintendent (or more senior officer), the reports shall be sent to the Commission at the state level; for other officers, the reports must be sent to the Authority at the district level. If the Commission or Authority believes that there has been a delay dealing with a complaint, it may direct the police to expedite the inquiry. If a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of an inquiry and believesthat the principles of natural justice have not been followed, the Commission or Authority may direct the police to institute a fresh inquiry by a different officer.
A Complainant has also been granted right under the act[57], which are
a)    to be informed of the progress of an inquiry periodically and of any conclusion and action taken in their case.
b)    to be informed of the date and place of each hearing.
c)     to attend all the hearings.
d)     to have all hearings conducted in a language intelligible to the complainant,and if that is not possible, to be provided with an interpreter upon his or her request.
13.   Police Offences :
The list of offences committed by a police officer under the Police Act, 1861 includes wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order; withdrawal from duties of the office or being absent without permission or reasonable cause; engaging without authority in any employment other than police duty; cowardice; and causing any unwarrantable violence to any person in her/his custody. The penalty for these offences is fine up to three months’ pay or imprisonment up to three months or both[58].
Under the Model Police Act, 2006, Identified police misconduct is considered a criminal offence. Identified misconduct includes illegal arrest, detention, search and seizure, failure to present an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours, subjecting a person to torture, inhuman or unlawful violence, gross misbehaviour and making threats or promises unwarranted by law[59]. Non-registration of a First Information Report shall also be an offence punishable with three months imprisonment or fine (or both)
Conclusion
The Police Act, 1861 needs to be replaced with legislation that reflects the democratic nature of India.s polity and the changing times. The Act is weak in almost all the parameters that must govern democratic police legislation. The Act has made it easier for others to abuse and misuse the police organisation.It has been possible for people in positions of power to do so because of the following reasons:
i)        The Act gives the government, the authority to exercise superintendence over the police, without defining the word.Superintendence. or prescribing some guidelines to ensure that the use of power will be legitimate
ii)      The Act does not establish any institutional and other arrangements to insulate the police from undesirable and illegitimate outside control, pressures and influences
iii)     The Act does not recognise the responsibility of the government to establish an efficient and effective police force.
iv)     The Act does not make it necessary to outline objectives and performance standards, nor does it set up independent mechanisms to monitor and inspect police performance.
v)      The Act is antiquated in its charter of duties, which is narrow and limited.
vi)    The Act does not mandate the police to function as a professional and serviceoriented organization
vii)   The Act is not in consonance with the requirements of democratic policing. These requirements insist on the existence of a police force that:
(a) is subject to the rule of law, rather than the whims of a powerful leader or party;
b) can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and controlled circumstances; and
(c) is publicly accountable.
Criticism of  the Model Police Act, 2006:
1.      The first concerned expressed is that some of the words and phrases used in the Model Act have been defined very broadly in Chapter I of the Act. For instance, words and phrases like terrorist activity, militant activities, insurgency and organized crime have been used throughout the Model Act with concomitant police duties as well as powers of the state to declare areas as Special Security Zones. The definition of these terms is not sufficiently precise. Instead, definitions are inclusive- the terms are defined to include activities. It means that many other activities that are not specified can fall within the terms of the definition. This has the potential to impact heavily on the fundamental rights of the community, and broaden the application of the Act well beyond what was anticipated by the Committee.
2.       Secondly, grave reservations are expressed regarding the inclusion of Section 22 in Chapter II of the Model Act. Section 22 empowers the Superintendent of Police to appoint any able-bodied and willing person he considers fit to be a Special Police Officer to assist the Police Service. A Special Police Officer appointed under Section 22 would have the same powers and immunities as ordinary police officers, but would not have the opportunity to undertake the comprehensive training a regular officer is required to undergo, in subjects as diverse as the use of fire arms, the principles of law relating to use of force and the legal rights of the public. Experience in Punjab,If more police officers are required in a given situation, proper recruitment and appointment procedures must be followed to induct new officers. An effective police service is a professional, trained policeservice. This is a minimum standard that must not be breached.
3.      Thirdly, the concern expressed is regarding the police presence in rural India which continues to be minimal. The rural policing system advocated by the Committee in Chapter VII is based on assistance from local villagers who are appointed as Village Guards and Village Defense Parties. Their functions broadly include: (a) preventive patrolling; (b) securing and preserving scenes of crime; (c) remaining alert and sensitive to any information about any suspicious activity. such information to the police; (d) making arrests and handing arrested people to the police without delay. It has been observed that these provisions have vast scope for abuse. Questions like, “who are suspicious persons?”, and “what is suspicious activity?” are bound to arise. Authorizing Village Guards to arrest and hand over a suspect to police is also an issue. Concern has been expressed regarding the absence of any provision requiring the Village Guards to hand over the suspect within twenty-four hours of arrest, which is the general standard followed in the Cr.P.C. It might result in a concentration of power in the hands of the dominant groups within villages that might be steeped in gender, caste or religious bias. The scope for abuse is vast; especially given the fact that most villagers would not be aware of the ambit of powers of the Village Guard and Defense Party or of their rights vis-à-vis these power structures within the village. Apart from the grave dangers of abuse of power, lack of appropriate skills, experience and training would also mean inefficient, ineffective and unresponsive policing in rural areas. Doubts have been raised about the skills of a villager while preserving and securing crime scenes or in preventive patrolling. It has also been observed that there is no excuse for the failure to provide regular police cover to villages where the majority of Indian population resides.
4.      The Model Police Act seeks to cover the entire field of police administration, much of which cannot and need not be incorporated in a statute by Parliament. There are too many details of administration. Some of the sections of this nature which are illustrative of this are amenities in police stations (Section 12(5)), non-statutory activities such as technical and support services (Section 17), state police academies (Section 18),organization of research (Section 19 )qualification for recruitment (Section 25), service conditions (Section 26) ),financial management ( Section56).
Though the Model Police Act, 2006 is not free from criticisms but it is a better substitute to the old and outdated Police Act, 1861


[1] Article 246 of the Indian Constitution.
[2] Police Organization in India, Report of the Commonwealth for Human Rights Initiative, p. 10.
Available at http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/police_organisations.pdf
[3] Police Act of 1861, section 3.
[4] Section 4 of the Police Act of 1861.
[5] This is handled by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), also under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946. See Police Organization report, at p. 53
[6] Report of the Roundtable Conference on Police Reforms (26-27 June, 2003, CHRI) p. 3, available at
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/rtc_report_trivandrum.pdf. See also, S. P. Singh Makkar and Abdul Hamid, Police Act 1861: A Critique, 4 Cent. Ind. L. Q. 209 (1991).
[7] “It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offences to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend, and forwhose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police-officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect, any drinking-shop, gaming-house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters.”
[8] Section 29 of  the Police Act 1861
[9] Section 19(c) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978.
[10] section 19(h) of the Delhi Police Act of 1978.
[11]Prakash Singh and Ors v Union of India and Ors1 ;(2006) 8 SCC 1
[12] Preamble, Police Act 1861.
[13] Preamble. Model Police Act, 2006.
[14] Section 3, Police Act, 1861
[15] Section 4, Police Act, 1861
[16] Section 39, Model Police Act, 2006.
[17] Section 39(2), Model Police Act, 2006.
[18] Section 51, Model Police Act,2006.
[19] Section 51(3), Model Police Act,2006.
[20] Section 41, Model Police Act,2006.
[21] Section 42, Model Police Act, 2006.
[22] Section 48, Model Police Act,2006.
[23] Section 6, Model Police Act, 2006.
[24] Section 7, Police Act 1861.
[25] Section 13, Model Police Act,2006.
[26] Section 54(4) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[27] Section 53(5) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[28] Section 26(2) of the Draft Police Act, 2006.
[29] Section 54(Proviso) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[30] Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006
[31] Section 54 of the Model Police Act,2006.
[32] Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861.
[33] Section 4 of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[34] Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006
[35] Section 4(3) of the Model Police Act, 2006
[36] Section 24(2) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[37] Section 25(1) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[38] Section 35(1) of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[39] Section 35(2) of the Model Police Act,2006.
[40] Preamble, Police Act 1861.
[41]  Section 99(b) of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[42] Section 16 of the Model Police Act, 2006.
[43] Section 16(2) of the Model Police Act 2006.
[44] Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[45] Section 122 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[46] Section 125(1) of Model Police Act, 2006.
[47] Section 125(2)of Model Police Act, 2006.
[48] Section 124of Model Police Act, 2006.
[49] Section 40 (1)(a) of Model Police Act, 2006
[50] Section 40(2) of Model Police Act 2006.
[51] Section 181 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[52] Section 159 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[53] Section 167 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[54] Section 160 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[55] Section 173 of Model Police Act, 2006.
[56] Section 167(3) Model Police Act, 2006.
[57] Section 177 of the Model Police Act 2006
[58] Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861.
[59] Section 199 and Section 200 of Model Police Act, 2006.
Read more
Posted by Sonia Saini | no comments
March 28

Caveat Application


IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, ____


_____ R/o ____

………….CAVEATORS
VERSUS 

1- ____ son of _____ R/o ____

2- ____ son of _____ R/o ____

………….RESPONDENTS


CAVEAT UNDER SECTION ___ OF CPC 

Sir, 

The caveator most respectfully submits as under:-

1- That the caveator are residing at present at the above mentioned address. 
2- That the respondent No.1 filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction titled as ____ VERSUS ____ etc.” in the court of _____, Civil Judge, ____ against the caveators. The summons of that case were duly received by the caveator and appeared before the Hon’ble court. 
3- That on ____ the respondent No.1 withdraw the said civil suit from the court of _____ with the permission to file a Suit for Specific Performance of the contract against the caveator. 
4- That now the caveator have apprehension that the respondents may file any the suit for specific performance against them appeal before the Hon’ble Civil Judge, ____ and can obtain any stay against the caveators. If the respondents files the said suit against the caveator in that event the caveator and/or their counsel _____ Advocate be intimated before passing any order against the caveators.
PRAYER 
It is, therefore, prayed that the caveat of the caveator may kindly be accepted and if the respondents files the suit for Specific permanent & Permanent Injunction or any other civil suit against the caveator in that event the caveator and/or __ counsel _____ Advocate be intimated before passing any order against the caveator against the caveator in the interest of justice.

Dated CAVEATOR 

____ R/o ____ 

THROUGH COUNSEL 

_____, Advocate, _____
Read more
Posted by Sonia Saini | no comments
March 28

Change of signature certificate


                                                        AFFIDAVIT

I, __________ son/daughter/spouse of _____________ aged ___, residing at __________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I, Shri/Smt ___________, having signature now to be changed as copy of specimen is attached.

2. I am residing at the abovementioned address and have not changed my address in the past three years.

OR
I am residing at the abovementioned address for the past (period of time at the present address) and before that I was staying at (the earlier address ) for (period of time at the earlier address).

3. That I have changed my signature.

4. I hereby affirm that after dated _________ all the signature done by me i.e. ________________ will be as no. 2 done on specimen copy attached with affidavit and any signature done with no.1 will not considered as minw.

I am executing this declaration to be submitted to the concerned authorities for the change of signature.

I hereby state that whatever is stated herein above are true to the best of my knowledge.

Solemnly affirmed at ________ )

On this ____ day of ______ 2004 ) (Signature of the Applicant)
Deponent

Identified by me Before Me

Advocate S.E.M./ Oaths Commissioner/Notary


Read more
Posted by Sonia Saini | no comments
NEWER OLDER 1 2 … 4 5 6